This came to me via Bonnitta Roy:
When I shared this with Sunni she asked me if I feel I have this … and this was my answer:
I am not sure that “it” is really a thing. I do not trust the dichotomies of “it-ness” that mechanistic thinking likes to assume and impose.
I do resonate with some of the experiences associated with “it.” I rarely experience visual memory (or other expressions of felt experience), most of my “memories” feel like stories that have been told to me about myself.
“Guided Meditations” (setting aside that I think the title is an oxymoron) have rarely worked for me, visualizing just doesn’t seem to play out well for me. I wonder how many other people have been alienated by “guided meditations” making them feel inapt and disconnected because the so called “guides” are not well informed?
In my painting I have come rely on a process of writing because, once again, visualizing does not works for me.
I would be hard pressed to describe people I know, even people with whom I’ve lived for years … I can’t recall features visually … I can’t tell you something like eye-color (unless I intentionally memorize it, and I am not good at memorizing either).
I think I may experience less emotional attachment (than others!?) … and that could be related to not having images present in my mind.
I do not experience much “missing” … of people or places … and even when I do … I feel doubts about what it is that I miss.
I can imagine that “it” is not a fixed phenomenon (like disconnected wires or inactive areas in the brain) and I suspect that “it” is effected by conditions and circumstances.
I do appreciate the recognition that different people (in different contexts?) experience visualization differently.
I do appreciate the breaking down of assumptions that we are all similar … that a brain is a brain … or a mind is a mind …
I do appreciate when mainstream scientific thinking moves closer (albeit in small steps) to respecting complexity, refinement and subtlety of perception and cognition.
Leave a Reply